“Evolution in one limited way is compelling: if there is no God, then evolution assuredly is the only conceivable explanation of the development of life as we see it.”
It is not the only conceivable explanation, just the best one.
“However that “if there is no God” is a very big “if”.”
What do you mean by ‘big’? Is it in terms of relevance? Explanatory power? Or is it just important to you because god must have a role somewhere.
“So my next question is, what is science doing to figure out that “if”? The answer as far as I can see it is: very little. Which is surprising.”
No it isn’t surprising. Why investigate something that is unnecessary or irrelevant and provides no explanatory value?
“When I look at the amazing and complex structures, functions, and communities of organisms that we see, personally it seems to so positively suggest a designer. Not only a designer, but a fabulous one.”
Logic = fail. Maybe I can attribute this to your engineering leaning or background. Buildings, watches and televisions are all designed. They cannot evolve into place. Living organisms reproduce and are subject to forces of natural selection. Add huge amounts of time and voila – diversity of life. QED. The addition of god adds nothing to the explanation or the predictive power of the theory.
“So why is the super designer option not given attention as a viable possibility? It just doesn’t make sense to ignore it, despite special creation being awkward to “test with science”.”
Tell me how to test for it. If it cannot be disproven and there is no evidence for it what is the point? Pardon me I state there is no evidence for it. If there is please enlighten me.
“Rather, it seems to be an axiom of evolutionary science: there is no super designer; look for a naturalistic explanation. But that’s bad science. If you start with that axiom, inevitably you’ll come to a naturalistic conclusion.”
Oh where do I start? You clearly do not understand the scientific method nor do you state correctly the reasoning employed by scientists. If anyone is starting with a predetermined belief it is you.....there is a god......no let’s try to fit him in somewhere.
“Even if creation by God is hard to test, it’s sensible science to ask the question of whether evolution is a feasible explanation. Is it probable or possible for evolution to make what we see, in the time that was available, with the conditions available? Again, I don’t see this question being honestly asked; rather it appears that it is assumed as axiomatically true. That’s bad science.”
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree strongly because all the evidence supports the theory. You accuse scientists of being dishonest (or incompetent). It seems that you, who have not studied science, are qualified to state what is and is not good science.
“The way evolutionary science pushes ahead without considering these basic questions, makes me think that evolutionary science doesn’t really want to ask these questions. The way it pushes ahead, confident that evolutionary science will eventually find all the answers, makes me think that the minds are closed to the possibility that evolution isn’t viable; that we actually needed a God to put us here. There is an anti-God bias. That alone gives me confidence that they could well be making a grand error. They’ve already made up their minds. If God made everything, then evolutionary science as it is being practised is not going to discover it. And that is bad science.”
You are intensely interested in questions that evolutionary scientists consider irrelevant and unhelpful. You accuse scientists of having closed minds. I think that maybe you think that everyone who doesn’t believe what you do is closed minded. I suggest that the answer ‘god’ is used by people who are uncomfortable living in a world of chance and without an ultimate purpose and who need to feel special and not merely a product of evolution, but who have a personal god looking out for them, to comfort them and tell them how to behave (as if we didn’t know already).
It is not the only conceivable explanation, just the best one.
What do you mean by ‘big’? Is it in terms of relevance? Explanatory power? Or is it just important to you because god must have a role somewhere.
No it isn’t surprising. Why investigate something that is unnecessary or irrelevant and provides no explanatory value?
Logic = fail. Maybe I can attribute this to your engineering leaning or background. Buildings, watches and televisions are all designed. They cannot evolve into place. Living organisms reproduce and are subject to forces of natural selection. Add huge amounts of time and voila – diversity of life. QED. The addition of god adds nothing to the explanation or the predictive power of the theory.
Tell me how to test for it. If it cannot be disproven and there is no evidence for it what is the point? Pardon me I state there is no evidence for it. If there is please enlighten me.
Oh where do I start? You clearly do not understand the scientific method nor do you state correctly the reasoning employed by scientists. If anyone is starting with a predetermined belief it is you.....there is a god......no let’s try to fit him in somewhere.
You are entitled to your opinion. I disagree strongly because all the evidence supports the theory. You accuse scientists of being dishonest (or incompetent). It seems that you, who have not studied science, are qualified to state what is and is not good science.
You are intensely interested in questions that evolutionary scientists consider irrelevant and unhelpful. You accuse scientists of having closed minds. I think that maybe you think that everyone who doesn’t believe what you do is closed minded. I suggest that the answer ‘god’ is used by people who are uncomfortable living in a world of chance and without an ultimate purpose and who need to feel special and not merely a product of evolution, but who have a personal god looking out for them, to comfort them and tell them how to behave (as if we didn’t know already).